Jump to content

L. Brilliant

Gold Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by L. Brilliant

  1. It took the Rovers a long time to adjust to the tempo County played at, the slick movement of the ball as well as the physical challenge, and not being behind after that was a real success.  It's fair to be disappointed with the goals but at the same time there was no injustice in the scoreline.  Finishing relatively strongly means we can still go up there with some positivity, even if it's not expectation, and that will help - but it's also going up there with a better idea what we're up against and what kind of approach is realistic.  

    It was close enough in the end to have a few What Ifs - Connolly goes very close at 0-0 and after a poor season and no away wins in so long, how do County react if it goes in?  The free kick Vaughan took was wasted too, seemed clearly better suited to Connolly.  Vaughan didn't find a way into the game really, didn't adjust to bigger, better faster opponents - but I still think he could do on Sunday.  May need to keep it simpler and be very patient, but he can still make a difference.  Certain that Connolly can too, if teammates are close enough to him.  

    County are obviously better than any of our league opponents this season and it would be smash and grab if we get something up there, but it's not impossible.

  2. If Murray is a serious candidate for Hibs then like RATM I think the playoffs are a bit of an audition. They need a fan-pleasing appointment so while A Hibs Man is a winner, a championship failure wouldn't be. 

    Like mckinnon I wouldn't grudge him taking it, but the unacceptable part with mckinnon was the strong impression that in between playoff legs his head was fully turned and he'd checked out mentally before Easter Road. 

    This time I think it's in our favour that he needs to progress in the playoffs to be the appointment Hibs are after. 

  3. 3 hours ago, Raith Against The Machine said:

    There's legitimate points in there about honesty and, in particular, transparency, but from my point of view, I'm not seeing a smoking gun. 

    The intrinsic link between gambling and football isn't the most palatable, but with the SPFL about to announce a record deal with William Hill, I don't think this is going to bring down the Barrowman administration. 

    Good summation.  I don't love it personally but it's far from the kind of 'problematic' that's in our recent past.

  4. 1 hour ago, Specky Ginger said:

    Without checking I'd say 92-93, but that was a 44 game season with 2 points for a win.

    It was, we won 25. In 94-95 it was 19.

    The earlier season obviously there was less incentive or necessity to push for a winner in drawn games, which obviously applied to opponents as much as to us and we did only lose 4 out of 44 - maybe only two or three prior to sealing the title. With 3 pts per win that would have been 90, pro rated to 36 games 73.6. 

    Not a fair comparison clearly  and if 3 pts per win I doubt we'd have had all the home draws v Stirling, Hamilton, clydebank etc. Did we beat clydebank at all that season? There's a coincidence there if you look hard enough at it!

  5. Could see a refined version of the 3 4 3 getting tried tomorrow. Tonight's result shouldn't really make a difference as all the preparation is still before that happens. Anyway something with McGill- Turner- Stanton-someone on the left. Not saying I want this exactly but I've got the luxury of not being responsible for it... not feeling much appetite for trying to grind out a 1-0 or a draw that does nothing for playoff confidence. 

    Still hope to see more game time for Matthews - reckon he only got taken off at ht on Tues because we were expecting to dominate the ball and that was fair enough. He wasn't at fault for that result - you can't shut down a good passing team on your own.

  • Create New...